The Japanese film industry during the 1930s was quite different from Hollywood. While the American movie producers had switched over to sound by about 1929 (afer the first talking picture in 1927), Japan and much of the world continued making silents for some time. In fact, up until almost 1940, Japanese films were still silents. In addition, some old film techniques (such as the stationary camera used by Ozu up until the 1960s) lingered. I mention all this because I understand the context for 1930s Japanese films and have watched about a dozen or two. However, even compared to these other films, "Minato No Nihon Musume" is a very, very old fashioned film...and I don't see the genius that some other reviewers have mentioned. Technically speaking, the film was very badly dated when it debuted. The biggest problem is the incredibly detached style of storytelling (and yes, I know that this was not all that unusual for Japanese films)--because of this it loses so much of its emotional impact and is dull when the film had a story that NEVER should have been dull. Instead of telling the story in a traditional narrative, the story is laid out in vignettes that are framed with intertitle cards that describe what is about to occur...which was great for 1910....but certainly not the best or most interesting ways to tell any story.
As for the story, it's all about a woman who is used by a jerk named 'Henry' and the consequences (both immediate and long-term). I cannot complain too much that the 'foreigner' Henry clearly is NOT a westerner but a Japanese man. This is because at the same time, Hollywood was featuring the Swede, Warner Oland, as Charlie Chan! In fact, having westerners play Asians was the norm for decades...so Henry's poor casting can be understood in its context. Plus, perhaps no western actors were even readily available for the part. Regardless, the story idea isn't bad...but is just not executed in a way that makes for interesting viewing.
As for the story, it's all about a woman who is used by a jerk named 'Henry' and the consequences (both immediate and long-term). I cannot complain too much that the 'foreigner' Henry clearly is NOT a westerner but a Japanese man. This is because at the same time, Hollywood was featuring the Swede, Warner Oland, as Charlie Chan! In fact, having westerners play Asians was the norm for decades...so Henry's poor casting can be understood in its context. Plus, perhaps no western actors were even readily available for the part. Regardless, the story idea isn't bad...but is just not executed in a way that makes for interesting viewing.